Tim, good luck with your sketching it's something I'd love to do as my son and wifes side of the family all seem to be able to produce something recognisable. All I produced when I tried was a large bag of paper for recycling.
I love landscapes as well so enjoy looking at books and other mediums, but purely as an "onlooker" as I'm not very good at them either maybe when I can afford to move up to MF or LF I'll give landscapes a serious try.
Last edited by TPPhotog; 01-08-2005 at 06:38 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I think sketching is an invaluable exercise from time to time for any photogrpaher. Even, or maybe especially, when you suck at it! You don't have to produce a master sketch, but it will improve your eye.
I have to add another vote for Rothko as an influence, his paintings really are extraordinary. They force you to slow down, and take them in, and savour the colors. As Gene said, very spiritual and contemplative.
Also, Tony, I was thinking about this thread last night, and if you are interested in Hopper, you might also look at Vermeer's paintings. They aren't quite as psychologically compelling as Hopper, but he uses the figure in light and space in much the same way as Hopper.
Thank you Suzanne I will indeed
If we're voting, I guess I have to concur with Suzanne about Hopper and Vermeer, since their paintings are about the only images I am looking at recently.
Originally Posted by Suzanne Revy
In addition to their use of lighting, another common characteristic I think they share is their physical 'closeness' to the subject. The painter often seems to be just barely out of the scene depicted. With Hopper though, he would have been suspended in air over a street at least once
I have been spending quite a bit of time over the last couple of years learning about 20th century art, its various movements and the foundation put down by the imprssionists of the late 19th century.
I think it is important to understand modern art history because it begins to intertwine with photography beginning with futurism and surrealism and continues today. Just as early photographers tried to mimic painting, artists began to mimic the realism that the camera could present. (O'keefe, Sheeler,
Steiglitz). And as modern art moved to abstract expressionism photography followed suit with one example being the relationship that existed between artists such as DeKooning, and Pollack and Aron Siskind the photographer.
I love all kinds of art from early Byzantine to stuff today. Right now I am spending time researching and looking at monographs or web sties devoted to Stuart Davis, Joseph Stella and Robert Crawford all American modernists.
"Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm influenced as much by non-photo art books as photo ones -- though to be fair I've come to largely ignore the boundaries between different genres of visual art. Photo, sketch, daubed, dunked, digitized -- all inevitably come from the same sources and lead to similar destinations.
So true, art comes from within and not the tools one chooses.
Originally Posted by bjorke
Not a book but since Vermeer has come up...I highly recommend the movie that came out in 2003 "Girl with the Pearl Earing" obviously after one of his most famous portraits. The movie is exceptionally well photographed...each scene could be a painting (or photograph) unto it's own. Amazing lighting and the movie is also very good. They even have a scene where Jan brings a "camera obscura" home to the studio and shows it to his model.
Matt's Photo Site
"I invent nothing, I rediscover". Auguste Rodin